The Grauniad has been running a series of guest posts as a 'Blog Festival (including from SciCurious, usually of this parish). Yesterday's post was called "The simple truth about statistics", which is of my chosen specialist subjects. I'm still trying to work out whether the irony in the errors in the post were deliberate.
The post was written by Matt Parker, who is apparently The Stand-up Mathematician. It might sound odd, but mathematicians can sometimes be confused for statisticians. Whilst statistics has a mathematical core, it is its own discipline with its own dark arts. Some of these have been used (deliberately or not) by Parker in his post.

As he points out, that's true, but the UK started with the highest rates, and we're still the seventh worst country. But it's not clear what his point is - it's about interpretation of statistics, and spin. Not statistics per se. Overall, the pattern is similar in several countries (the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium) with only small variations between them.

As for the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) report that compared the UK with East Africa: it was looking at how many women in 100,000 were diagnosed with breast cancer, not deaths. There are several problems trying to compare UK statistics with East Africa's. The report does mention in passing that the eastern Africa numbers are only reported cases. Much of the population do not have sufficient access to medical support to be diagnosed in the first place.

He's right that the Guardian does concentrate on the lifestyle differences, rather than case recording. But then he starts to go off the rails:

Not only that, but a quick check on the World Health Organisation's website shows that the average life expectancy for women in Zimbabwe is only 42.3 years (compared with the UK's 81.7 years). Most women in East Africa simply do not live long enough to get breast cancer. In the UK, eight out of 10 breast cancers are diagnosed in women aged 50 and over. That women in a different country have half the life expectancy of the UK is the real story, not that our decadent western lifestyle is causing breast cancer.

Zimbabwe? East Africa? Well, that's an understandable confusion: the report talks about Eastern Africa, and includes Zimbabwe in their analysis. But still, why pick out Zimbabwe? Well, if you're familiar with the situation in Africa, you'll know that the country has been falling apart, thanks to some inept government. So the mortality rater might be rather high. Let's look at the figures, from the WHO (pdf), for the Eastern African countries used in the study (these are the expected life expectancies for women born in 2008):

Now, that was naughty. He picked the country with the lowest life expectancy to make the comparison. So he inflates the difference, to make the situation worse than it seems.

Actually, it's even worse than that. A representative from the WCRF (who produced the original report) turns up in the comments to point out that the data aren't the raw reported rates, but are corrected for age. Their report (which Parker actually links to) states:

# The rates per 100,000 people have been age adjusted. This means that for each country they have taken into account the differing proportions of people in different age groups to make sure they are comparing like with like.
# This is important because older people are more likely to develop breast cancer, which would otherwise distort the figures because the UK’s population is older than Eastern Africa’s.

I guess Parker didn't read down to the notes at the bottom, but only saw the headline figures in the second paragraph:

According to the latest cancer statistics, 87.9 women per 100,000 in the UK (adjusted for age) were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008, compared to just 19.3 women per 100,000 in Eastern Africa, which includes countries such as Kenya and Tanzania.

Adjusted for age? Ooops.

For those of you wondering what these adjustments are, they are a standard technique in statistics. Briefly, the population is split into age groups and the rates (of reporting of breast cancer in this case) are recorded as the number of cases per 1000 people (e.g. 4.5 cases per 1000 women of ages 40-49). These are then multiplied by the number of people in each group taken from a reference population (I think they used a global average) and then summed these numbers. In other words, they ask what would the overall rate be if the same age-specific rates were applied to the global population. If you want a fuller explanation, this is pretty good. The basic point, though, is that it doesn't matter that UK women live longer: this is corrected for in the calculations. And this was clear (and it's a standard thing to do).

Matt Parker ends his piece with this paragraph:

When misused, statistics are less Disraeli's "damned lies" and more another leader's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". It is by not presenting all of the information and selectively choosing definitions that statistics can appear to lie. But such claims will not stand up under cross-examination.

I know of not a single instance in which the implementation of statistics or probability clarified our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. Leo Berg offered the same opinion 88 years ago -

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134

It is my belief that just as ontogeny proceeds on the basis of information already present in the egg, so phylogeny also proceeded on the basis of information already present millions of years ago in an unknown number of primordial life forms. Furthermore, the controlled release of that information has been the sole means by which evolution proceeded in an upward direction finally to produce the present biota. Just as new life forms appeared as part of a planned sequence so did the necessary extinctions do the same. Without planned extinction there could never have been evolution.

I also believe that creative evolution is no longer in progress, that the present biota is the terminus of a planned sequence and that it too, like its predecessors, will also become extinct.

I do not enjoy presenting such a dismal prospectus, but I believe it is what reality indicates.

All tangible evidence pleads in favor of this alternative to the Darwinian model for which no experimentally derived evidence has ever been forthcoming.

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell

"An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi

"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis

It is my belief that just as ontogeny proceeds on the basis of information already present in the egg...

... and of random environmental variables, providing the basis for statistics and probability in ontogeny. Also, the information in the egg is a random combination of parental genetic information (according to mendel's laws of segregation), also following probabilistic and statistical laws.

Matt Parker's article is... painful. Yes, 49% of girls under 18 having abortions is unbelievable, but not because it implies that girls under 9 are having them- by his reasoning you'd also expect some under 9 year olds to have them if the rate is 4.9%.

Also, in epidemiology 'cancer rate' almost always refers to incidence rate. If you want mortality, you state mortality. I think he's just not familiar with cancer epidemiologists. The funny thing is the original reporters got this right- one used 'rates' for incidence and the other used 'deaths from' for mortality. If those sound similar to Parker, he's not used to reading about cancer.
Of course, in fairness, that may also be true of the vast majority of people reading the articles. Still, it didn't seem like he was presenting the message 'the phrasing is confusing for the layman' but 'the phrasing is ambiguous'. He's arguing "statistics aren't confusing" AND "statistics appear to lie" when the non-statistical jargon he's up against IS confusing for the layman, but if you understand the definition, does not appear to lie at all.

But yeah, our "decadent western lifestyles"? Like not having children at age 15? If you want to critique the article, why not understand the scientifically relevant differences between the populations? Which include things that the article mentioned, like breastfeeding rates and obesity, but also include other things (possibly including genetic differences in populations). And age, but even in the main article it was noted that was corrected for.

I think what's really going on here is smart people with different ideas about what to do about something. Karen McVeigh and Randeep Ramesh, who wrote the 'good progress' article seem to be emphasizing the improvement in treatments- useful information (particularly if we're talking about the value gained from funding).

Denis Campbell, who wrote the 'scary' article, seems to want to emphasize that there are things women can do to reduce their odds- useful information. However, in doing so he's emphasizing obesity. Now, if you follow public perceptions, I'd wager that you could determine a meaningful difference in opinion between how people view breast cancer patients and say, obese heart disease patients. There is a tremendous political movement in combating breast cancer, and a lot of it has been intelligently designed to appeal to emotion as well as fact (e.g. telling an individual's story as well as citing statistics when asking for donations). If we start *blaming* breast cancer patients for their disease, if we think of it as just another lifestyle disease, you loose a lot of that momentum. Incidentally, on balance I think the emotional appeals and the breast cancer foundations do enormous good, so I can see why there would be pushback from casting patients in a negative light. I wonder if Parker is picking up on that.

Yes, 49% of girls under 18 having abortions is unbelievable, but not because it implies that girls under 9 are having them- by his reasoning you’d also expect some under 9 year olds to have them if the rate is 4.9%.

Actually, I thought that was one of his better points. If you assume that girls under 9 cannot have had abortions, and that that represents approximately half the population of girls under 18; then all girls between the ages of 9 and 18 have had an abortion (not even that all girls have one between those ages). That makes it not just absurd but impossible.

If we start *blaming* breast cancer patients for their disease, if we think of it as just another lifestyle disease, you loose a lot of that momentum. Incidentally, on balance I think the emotional appeals and the breast cancer foundations do enormous good, so I can see why there would be pushback from casting patients in a negative light.

Hm, that's not something I'd thought about, but I can see the sense. I guess the negative light only comes when the message about how to improve your health is very well known, so it might not be too big an issue for breast cancer, except where the advice coincides with other health messages (like "eat your greens" and "drink in moderation". Um, I see the problem).

TBH, I don't get the impression Parker is all that informed about the breast cancer issue (and, TBH, I'm not either), so I suspect he picked these up because they were about the same topic and he could make some points about how stats are (mis-)used.

There is an important difference between my weblog and all the others that claim to be concerned with the great mystery of phylogenesis. I neither promote nor tolerate anonymity because it all too often proves to be license for the sort of abuse you just practiced. The weblogs of my Darwinian and Fundamentalist adversaries are all laced with anonymous blowhards just like yourself who typically make up the vast majority of the users.

There is nothing more cowardly and despicable than identifying ones adversary by name while hiding your own. That is standard policy at Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net, Sandwalk and Uncommon Descent. It also characterizes all the scientopia blogs as well. That is how blogmasters maintain their individual fan clubs by pandering to the needs of such pathetic creatures to see their phony names as often as possible.

A person who has confidence in his words would never hide his identity. Quite the contrary, like myself, he would insist on making his identity and his science as widely known as possible.

Thanks for just exposing yourself. It is always with his own words that each individual displays himself for all to see.

Maybe you should join Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, William Dembski and Wesley Royce Elsberry by banishing me here as they all did long ago from their highly controlled "groupthinktanks." On the other hand, if you have the stomach for it I will be happy to give you some more material to chew on.

Since I already sent this message to Dawkins and Myers, I felt you might be interested in it as well. Elsberry won't accept comments from me in any form. Neither will Lynn Margulis and DaveScot aka David Springer.

John - FWIW, I can see both Adrian's and Fred's email addresses, so I can vouch for them as real people. In fact, I have met both of them in person. And Adrian is Adrian's real name, so hardly anonymous (Fred is not Fred's real name, although he is a bulbous squidge).

Just because you know who your supporters are is no excuse for allowing them to post, especially when they resort to character assassination. Your blog is no different from Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, EvC, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net, Sandwalk or Uncommon Descent. They are all laced with anonymous blowhards willing to denigrate named adversaries while they hide their own identity. It is cowardly and disgusting! I don't tolerate it on my blog and I disapprove of it elsewhere.

The R.S.V.P in my latest message was not for you. It was for Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins, the two primary spokespersons defending the Darwinian hoax.

well, i think we first need to define what is "insulting" and then decide whether we ban the offenders outright or instead provide warnings, and if so, how many warnings before banning, and also whether we should give the offender a practice banning (of a week or so, say, just to show we're serious) before a final lifetime ban.

on the other hand, maybe we can all just agree to stop being so damned aggressive and insulting. for example, i find it really aggressive AND insulting to see PZ's and dawkins' full names posted here. we all know who they are, why is it necessary to write out their full names every time you refer to them? do you wish to insult our intelligence? or maybe you wish to imply that situation where a kid, upon hearing his full name being stated by a parent, knows he's in trouble for something and he'd better stop doing whatever he's doing.

since i find you naming PZ's and dawkins' full names to be insulting, should we start our john-imposed-banning-policy by banning you?

I am suggesting that you do not promote and permit insults from anonymous cowards. On the other hand, I am pleased that you have described me as a "chew toy" because that puts you in the same league with Pee Zee Myers who has used the term "wanking" to describe me, a synonym for masturbation. Meyers' preoccupation with masturbation is displayed daily on Pharyngula -

"Random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal."

I thought all ejaculations were biological, but random too? What a mess!

I happily absorb insults from known adversariea and advertise them on my weblog and anywhere else I am allowed to speak. Derogatory comments from unknown adversaries reflect on the blog head and no one else. I ignore them unless they are especially revealing in which case I reprint them like the ones from "PZPolice" or "woot" for example. I let them hold forth for a while before shutting them down. Of course their comments remain as testimony to their character.

Apparently girlscientist likes the term "wanking" as well.

As for banishing me, if you want to join with Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net, EvC, ARN, After The Bar Closes, Uncommon Descent and God only knows where else I can no longer opine, then banish me. Those blogs are also all crawling with anonymous blowhards. Scientopia has proven to be no different from the others. They all maintain their fans by the same means, personal and institutional insult of their adversaries. It is all about power -

"Power, the ultimate aphrodesiac."
Henry Kissinger

Now if Bob O'Hara wants to further characterize me, I hope he will. Nothing pleases me more than to see a real person declare his convictions and, by so doing, expose his persona for all to savor and enjoy. I do it all the time myself and will continue for as long as I am able. To slightly modify an old saw -

At least you know who is insulting you. You can't insult me because you don't exist. Bob knows who you are but don't worry, he won't expose you. If he did you wouldn't post here anymore. He needs you a lot more than you need him. So does every other blogczar (at all the other blogs I listed) need their mostly anonymous fans. Without their fans they would be nothing. As a matter of fact they're not much with them. It is all about ego and the need to be stroked. I prefer to be insulted, preferably by someone with the guts to use their real name, someone like Paul Zachary Myers or Bob O'Hara. I have noticed that there are not a lot of such types in cyberspace. I treasure them! You won't find Clinton Richard Dawkins or Wesley Royce Elsberry making that mistake. Insecure cowards that they are, they let their minions do it for them.

(a) The fact that someone chooses to use a pseudonym does not mean they do not exist. That statement is wrong in the most bizarre of fashions.

(b) I have not insulted you. Your inference is irrelevant, and the premise is wrong.

"I prefer to be insulted, preferably by someone with the guts to use their real name, someone like Paul Zachary Myers or Bob O’Hara."

Fine. My name is Mark John Brewer, a statistician in the UK, and I choose to use a pseudonym on blogs, but since I am not a coward, I will provide my real name when asked. As I noted earlier, on a point you don't seem to be able to comprehend, there is a difference between choosing to use a pseudonym and being a coward.

"It is all about ego and the need to be stroked. "

I refer you to the question you appear scared to answer, which can be found near the top of this response, and several other responses of mine in this thread.

I hate to tell you this but statistics never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny as both were planned from beginning to end and the end could be any time now for phylogeny as only extinction remains. Of course you could know all this if you would just visit my weblog which I'll bet you have never done and probably never will do. Right? That is the reason I include my web address so that others might find what this scientist has to say about the great mystery of organic evolution.

Once a role for chance has been eliminated and it has been countless times, there remains only one conceivable explanation for phylogeny. Exactly as the entire course of the development of the individual is "prescribed" in the egg, so then must this have been true for the information which produced the living world. That is my thesis and I have no intention of abandoning it until it has been shown to be without merit, a prospect I do not regard as likely. My Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH) each support this conclusion. Natural selection, the cornerstone of the Darwinian model, can account for nothing beyond the elaboration of varieties or subspecies neither of which are incipient species. In other words, neo-Darwinism is a total failure and should have been abandoned long ago. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

"You can lead a person to the truth but you cannot make him comprehend it."
John A. Davison, after the horse who refused to drink.

I neither want nor need allies as I am used to dealing with those who must resort to personal denigration as their only defense when their core beliefs are threatened. That kind of adversary has defeated himself.

In case you think I am the first to propose a planned phylogeny, consider this from Otto Schindewolf, in my opinion, the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier -

"The main features of the evolutionary path were laid out right from the start with the abrupt, discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted right from the start to certain paths."
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, the statement in his italics for emphasis.

I'll continue to entertain you as long as you permit me. There is plenty more I have to offer. I predict you will eventually do what Myers, Dembski, Elsberry, Dawkins and many others did long ago. You will either delete my messages, delete the whole thread or banish me.

Here is a much earlier version of my adage based on the old saw about the horse that wouldn't drink.

"I have found you an argument but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Samuel Johnson

"I neither want nor need allies as I am used to dealing with those who must resort to personal denigration as their only defense when their core beliefs are threatened. That kind of adversary has defeated himself."

I agree entirely. What are to we to make then of the fact that you choose to call people "cowards" and "blowhards"?

Any person who identifies his adversary by name while he hides his own identity is not only a coward but a blowhard as well, at least as far as I am concerned, which is all that matters. I enjoy exposing such pathetic types. It gives me great pleasure to expose them after I find out their real identity.

What I admire about Bob O'Hara is his willingness openly to show his contempt for me. That puts him on record as joining with Pee Zee Myers. If you want to find out what Meyers thinks about me, go to his Dungeon, his Hate File, where you will find me as one of the charter inmates, one of my proudest achievements. Both Dawkins and Elsberry hesitate to denigrate me publicly leaving that to their mostly anonymous, blowhard minions. I really wish they would do what Bob O'Hara has been doing but I suspect they know better. Elsberry won't even let my papers be mentioned on his inner sanctum "After The Bar Closes." He is terrified of me and especially my sources some of the best minds of the post "Origin of Species" era. So probably is Myers but his enormous ego insulates him from reality. Dawkins lives in such a fantasy world (entirely of his own construction) that there is no hope for him. The dust cover for his latest book defines him perfectly -

Richard Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins

My friend Terry Trainor, a young earth creationist (which I definitely am not)
put it this way -

"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare."

That has a nice ring to it

Trainor has also reproduced several of my essays. He is a fine Christian gentleman, willing to present views at variance with his own, a rarity in the world of internet communication.

"I neither want nor need allies as I am used to dealing with those who must resort to personal denigration as their only defense when their core beliefs are threatened. That kind of adversary has defeated himself.”

Despite further rhetoric, you fail to comprehend that by using such terms as "blowhards", "cowards" and "minions", you are resorting to "personal denigration". By your own words, you have "defeated" yourself.

By rational discourse I guess you mean being called a "chew toy" by Bob O'Hara and "Fluppy the Wonder Whelk" by Mark John Brewer? I congratulate you both on your masochism. I will make sure that your comments and your identities are preserved.

"By rational discourse I guess you mean being called a “chew toy” by Bob O’Hara and “Fluppy the Wonder Whelk” by Mark John Brewer?"

Calling you, Fluppy, a "chew toy" is entirely rational given the intellectual level of your contributions. And as for "Fluppy the Wonder Whelk", I just felt sorry for you not having a pseudonym. Feel free to suggest an alternative.

That is just in case you decide to delete the whole thread as grrlscientist recently did on her scientopia blog. It is unfortunate that I have to resort to these measures in order to deal with my enemies but they, by their shabby tactics, have made it necessary.

If you are sensible, you will stop insulting me because it is not just John A. Davison that you are insulting. You are insulting all my sources on whose work my own securely rests. However, if you insist on continuing to behave as you have, I have no objection. I am very grateful to have this opportunity to present my science and will continue as long as I am allowed here or anywhere else.

"It is unfortunate that I have to resort to these measures in order to deal with my enemies but they, by their shabby tactics, have made it necessary."

1. Please explain why I am an enemy of yours; what have I done to warrant that, other than to question your hijacking of blog threads?

2. Please explain what shabby tactics I have engaged in.

"If you are sensible, you will stop insulting me because it is not just John A. Davison that you are insulting."

3. With a name like Fred the Bulbous Squidge, am I likely to be sensible?

4. Why do you think it is appropriate to make threatening comments like this?

5. Please explain how I have been insulting? Re: the "Fluppy" issue, remember that while I would like to be referred to as "FtBS", you choose to use my real name (which, remember, I supplied freely given my lack of cowardice), so it seems only fair that I get to use a pseudonym for you. I am only doing unto you as would do unto others.

"I am very grateful to have this opportunity to present my science and will continue as long as I am allowed here or anywhere else."

6. Why choose to present your comments by hijacking the comments of an article which has nothing to do with your own work? Can you not see that is very rude? Could it be....that the reason you are barred from many blogs is that you engage in inappropriate behaviour? Why are you so incapable of understanding this?

7. Oh, and there were some other questions above you have failed to answer. Again. (October 9, 2010 at 1:31 pm)

You are encuraging anonymous cowards to belittle a named scientist. You are no different than Myers, Dawkins, or Elsberry. All I will say about VMartin is that he is a vocal supporter of my science, one of very few. He is no sockpuppet as many have assumed.

I have made no false accusations and have documented everything. You can find it all on my weblog.

As for not deleting what I say - that sounds good to me. You have a lot more tolerance than "The Three Stooges" of evolutionary science, Wesley Royce Elsberry, Clinton Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers. Those cowardly clowns are afraid to let me say a word on their shabby little intellectual ghettos.

I'll give you some more antidarwiniana to chew on and digest shortly. Any publicity is good publicity, especially when it is provided free of charge by an adversary. In the meantime, mastigate and digest this from Pierre Grasse -

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107

As long as you allow me to hold forth you are my friend, but the minute you shut me down you will become another enemy. That choice is yours alone.

Grrl didn't delete the thread. We had moved ISP, and when our blog was moved across, the newest posts (from about July 2009) weren't transferred. Grrl and I had been travelling, so we were too busy to chase it up (and we didn't want to overload Mark either), so it took a couple of weeks to sort it out.

If you check, the thread should be there now. If it isn't, tell me which one it was and I'll chase it up.

I didn't mean to imply that VMartin wasn't legit. I am sure that he is, though as he remains anonymous, I am not sure Mr. Davison believes he exists. From reading VMartin's posts, it is obvious to me he is not a sock-puppet for Mr. Davison as his posts are much more genial and coherent, though misguided.

I just visited Davison's site and saw numerous anonymous posts by vmartin1 and Anonymous Benefactor, whoever they are. Why do they refuse to identify themselves? According to Mr. Davison, they must be cowardly blowhards?

Does John need them more than they need him? He appears to love them so.

I am just trying to figure out Mr. Davison's behavioural standards so I can write them down.

I have no idea who Anonymous Benefactor is. He is no longer involved with my blog. He helped me escape the clutches of Alan Fox which is why I have named him Anonymous Benefactor, AB for short! I know exactly who Martin is and I also know why he remains anonymous. However, he has his own blog where you can learn more about him. Google him to find his weblog. You will also discover his last name.

The vast majority of anonymous commenters remain anonymous because they are ashamed to disclose their identity. A person confident of his convictions would never hide his identity but would proudly attach his name to his words. I can't recall a decent scientist who would dream of hiding his identity. On the other hand, I know of some very mediocre scientists who are more than willing willing to disclose their identity- Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Wesley Royce Elsberry - not one of whom has ever published a word on the central questionof organic evolution; namely, the mechanism by which it took (past tense) place. Only Dawkins even pretends to have addressed that question but not a word he has ever published has clarified that issue. Quite the contrary, his absurd fantasies serve only to prolong the Darwinian fairy tale as they destroy his credibility as a serious biologist. His first book, The Selfish Gene," is the most ridiculous assertion in the history of science and his subsequent efforts have become more and more bizarre. I know of not one serious scientist who attaches any value to any of his publications. Of course Pee Zee Myers does but he is not a real scientist either. They are both insufferable egomaniacs who have completely abandoned science for the mindless endorsement of Universal Atheism, a hopeless venture at best.

As Cyrus Noe quipped-

"I read as little of Dawkins as possible."

Amen

If grrlscientist has restored her thread (the one about Christ) with my comments intact, send me a link to it so I can renew commenting there. I don't like to see whole threads disappear just because I showed up. It has happened to me before and it irritates me. I'll believe it when I see it.

I know of not one serious scientist who attaches any value to any of his publications.

I can only assume that either (a) you don't know many scientists, or (b) you are using an eccentric definition of 'serious'. Perhaps you're suggesting scientists who like Dawkins' books crack too many jokes?

If grrlscientist has restored her thread (the one about Christ) with my comments intact, send me a link to it so I can renew commenting there.

I notice that the last 6 messages are all from me and none of them were answered. That is a typical experience for me. It represents the persistent attitude of the Darwinian faithful that they have no credible adversaries. It is my intention to rectify that condition by restoring the several scientists to whom I have dedicated my own science to their proper postion as the "real" founders of evolutionary science. We all rejected the Darwinian scheme. By combining their works with my own I was able to produce a new hypothesis for phylogenesis, one that recognizes the testimony of both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory, neither of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwinian gradualist, unguided, mutational, selectionist paradigm.

Actually, I have already achieved that goal but, like all my sources, I too continue to be ignored just as they all were in their own time as well. I discuss this pathetic history in great detail in my book - "Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison." I am confident that the godless Darwinian paradigm is doomed to oblivion and all those who still promote it will soon be forgotten or worse, remembered as the enemies of science, trapped by an ideology which rigidly denies a planned, purposeful, goal directed evolution which I believe has terminated with the present flora and fauna and its most highly developed product - Homo sapiens - in my opinon the youngest and last mammal species ever to appear.

I have always been willing to defend that thesis. My reward has been ridicule, denigration and, with few exceptions, banishment. That is why this blog is important. So far it allows me to hold forth, to promote my science which is all that any scientist expects. Bob O'Hara is in a position to do what many others refuse to do which is to engage those with whom he disagrees. The only question is will he, or will he, as Pee Zee Meyers, Wesley Elsbery and Richard Dawkins have all done, muzzle this critic by shutting him down?

I am reminded of Gandhi's description of his struggles to free India -

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

It seems to me that we are still in phase two here. Judging from Gandhi's ultimate success, I'm quite satisfied.

"I notice that the last 6 messages are all from me and none of them were answered."

The last 6 messages were not all from you (Note: you are wrong) and yet all of your recent messages have been answered (Note: you are wrong).

"I have always been willing to defend that thesis. My reward has been ridicule, denigration and, with few exceptions, banishment."

Any ridicule you are experiencing here has nothing to do with your "thesis", but everything to do with the fact that you:
1) Continually evade direct questions;
2) Continue to hijack a thread which has nothing to do with your "thesis";
3) Are unable to maintain a coherent position;
4) Castigate others for insulting you yet insult others without conscience;
5) Criticise others for being egotistical yet quote yourself and repeatedly praise your own work;
6) Play the "martyr", complaining of being targeted by "anonymous" commentators who criticise you while being happy to accept *praise* from "anonymous" commentators;
7) Goad Bob and Grrl to "banish" you from their blog;
8-1000) etc etc etc

"...the godless Darwinian paradigm ..."

Whether the Darwinian paradigm is right or not, from a *scientific* point of view what relevance is there in saying that it is "godless"?

I do not recognize insults from anonymous blowhards. So you may continue with my blessings to display your character for all to see. Knowing your real name doesn't help either as I "googled" you and found absolutely nothing. Bob O'Hara is another matter atogether. Like Pee Zee Myers he is willing to insult me openly. Even Wes Elsberry doesn't have the guts to do that and certainly you won't catch Dickie Dawkins doing that either. They have their hired goons do that for them, low life like Alan Fox, one of the few from Elsberry's "inner sanctum" who use their real name. Of course with a name like Alan Fox what does that mean anyway?

As for banishment, I have been banished from all the right intellectual cesspools, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes, EvC, ARN, richarddawkins.net and others too numerous to mention and all for exactly the same reason. They couldn't tolerate anyone challenging their most cherished ideology, the absurd notion that evolution was an accident. The Fundies are not much better with their silly Bible Codes and other such nonsense.

By way of contrast I have banished only two individuals from my weblog , woot and PZPolice and they only after they thoroughly vented their spleen against me. Their nasty words remain enshrined on my weblog as testimony to their having been there. If anyone else from here would like to have his insults preserved, feel free to do it here, on my weblog or anyplace else. I relish insults. I collect and preserve them. It becomes part of my legacy. I wouldn't have it any other way.

1) I haven't actually been insulting you, at least not in the traditional sense.
2) The word "blowhards" is....an insult! Heaven forfend!
3) You know my real name, so on what *possible* grounds could you have for calling me "anonymous"?

"Knowing your real name doesn’t help either as I “googled” you and found absolutely nothing."

You are right on. They failed to respond because they were not interested in seeing their sacred Darwinian cow being butchered by real scientists like my several sources and myself, not one of whom was a religious or atheist fanatic.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

"They failed to respond because they were not interested in seeing their sacred Darwinian cow being butchered by real scientists like my several sources and myself, not one of whom was a religious or atheist fanatic."

Or: they failed to respond because you make no sense.

The evidence you are presenting here with your rantings favours my hypothesis, not yours, Fluppy.

neoDarwinism doesn't qualify even as an hypothesis. Hypotheses make predictions which when verified become transformed to the status of theory. Selection, natural or artificial, the sine qua non of Darwin's dream, can accomplish nothing beyond the elaboration of intraspecific varieties or subspecies none of which are incipient species. Selection is the certain path to extinction. That is no longer an opinion as it has been verified countless times both in nature and in the laboratory.

Sorry Fred the Bulbous Squidge, but no cigar.

You don't have to banish me as I am leaving confident that victory is already ours.

Thanks Bob for mentioning my presence here over at After The Bar Closes. All publicity is good publicity especially when it comes from an adversary. I doubt you will get much help from that mostly anonymous crew of blowhards as Wes Elsberry doesn't like to have my name mentioned there. Do me a favor and alert Pee Zee Myers and Dicky Dawkins that I'm also laughing at them here. Maybe you can get some support from them but I doubt it. There just as terrified of us as Elsberry is!

I don't respond to unknowns who find it necessary to insult me. It is a little late to become civil here in any event. Bob O'Hara and I are the only participants here as far as I'm concerned. We are both having a ball as near as I can tell. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed " to be, probably millions of years ago.

In the meantime here is another chestnut for Bob O'Hara to chew on and digest from the father of Modern Genetics.

"The entire process of evolution may be regarded as an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present."
William Bateson, Nature 93: 635-642, 1914

This is the first time I've come to this site, so perhaps my disappointment is no real loss. I am however, motivated enough to write a comment, which is something of a rarity on any site.

I found my way here from the Guardian article that gave rise to the post on this site. Both were interesting enough to warrant following links.

John A. Davison has done his best to bore the very living faeces out of me, and perhaps it is my own ignorance but I was under the impression that the original post was about something distinctly different from the drivel I've read in the ensuing comments. (Let me beat you to the punch: yes, I'm anonymous. No, I don't care).

In passing reference to the original topic (remember that thing?), let me make the baseless presumption that I am a representative sample of your readership... and JAD has turned me away. Ban him or not, please don't feed the trolls.

I'm sorry, I hadn't realised anyone might be reading this set of comments, other than JAD, Bob and I.

Yes, I hold my hands up, guilty of troll-baiting. I did check with Bob he was ok about it, to be fair to me. But...the original article and the first few comments were hopefully well worth your time, surely?

More anonymous drivel, this time from someone who "doesn't care." Imagine a scientific literature laced with anonymous authors who "don't care." Internet so-called "forums" are nothing but gossip factories manned by candidates for the psychiatric ward. This blog is After The Bar Closes all over again, a bunch of misfits who couldn't make it in the real world. The whole scientopia "experiment" is nothing but a rerun of the same old, same 0ld litany of Darwinian mysticism, the most infantile invention of the human imagination in the history of human communication. It is time someone exposed this whole atheist inspired debacle for what it really is - pure fantasy- the most sustained mass hysteria in history. Godless Darwinism has about the same validity as the Phlogiston of Chemistry. It is being kept alive by power crazed, deranged sociopaths like Pee Zee Myers and Dick Dawkins who manage to attract thousands of similarly disadvantaged souls to their pathetic little ideological Alamos. Those two clowns, more than anyone else, are responsible for the persistence of Darwin's infantile notion that natural selection was responsible for the animate world we see around us. Leo Berg correctly identified the role of natural selection 88 years ago. That is why the "establishment" still pretends he never existed!

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

It is a dirty job disposing of the Darwinian insult to science, but I am more than willing to take it on. Indeed, that is what I have been doing for the past several years. Armed with the science of the best biologists of the past 15o years, I will continue to demonstrate to receptive minds that there is not a word in Darwin's On the Origin of Species that ever had anything to do with that title - not a word.

"Internet so-called “forums” are nothing but gossip factories manned by candidates for the psychiatric ward."

"Candidates"? You need to be elected to a psychiatric ward these days?

"It is being kept alive by power crazed, deranged sociopaths like Pee Zee Myers and Dick Dawkins who manage to attract thousands of similarly disadvantaged souls to their pathetic little ideological Alamos."

Brilliant! Where do you get this stuff from?

But seriously, can you please give examples of sociopathic behaviour by either of these gentlemen? Or evidence of derangement? You see, I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm just asking you to back up your use of those terms. Otherwise, you're just ranting insensibly. And possibly libellously.

Mr. Davison: "Internet so-called “forums” are nothing but gossip factories manned by candidates for the psychiatric ward. This blog is After The Bar Closes all over again, a bunch of misfits who couldn’t make it in the real world."

You appear to be manning up yourself and misfit in as well as anyone.

Your posts are little more than anger filled drivel, void of any content worth discussion. You are not promoting or explaining your theory at all.

I get "this stuff " from their own mouths, such utter nonsense as "The Selfish Gene," "The Blind Watchmaker," Climbing Mount Improbable," etc.etc not to mention "The God Delusion." Nobody knows diddly squat about God or, more likely, Gods, not even Clinton Richard Dawkins. As I look around I am convinced there had to have been at least two Gods, now both dead, one benevolent, the other malevolent. Actually that dualism already exists in the Judeo/Christian ethic with Lucifer (Satan, Old Nick, Beelzebub, etc) a fallen angel.

Now in the case of Paul Zachary Myers I have to rely pretty much on his daily editions of "hate speech" because the miserable excuse for a human being has never published anything of note in a refereed journal. He even refuses to divulge his publication record as any fool can see by going to that link on his home page. His life consists almost entirely of gathering like minded disciples and spreading his Gospel of Hate on as many University campuses as he can fit into his very busy schedule, a schedule which recently damn near killed him! Myers is the perfect example of the depths to which a congenitally evil ideology can submerge the human spirit. He had to have been "born that way." He is a truly tragic figure in the contemporary scene just like his alter ego "Dicky" Dawkins across the pond. They have each abandoned science to dedicate their pathetic lives to the absurd attempt to convert the world to Universal Atheism, a venture doomed to failure even before it began.

I hope this serves to answer your question which was, for change, presented in an acceptable manner.

You might be interested in the fact that I forwarded my latest message here to Pee Zee Myers via his pesonal email, so don't be surprised if you get orders from above to banish me! I will even predict it. I hope you are still enjoying this as much as I am.

As for you, Most Bulbous One Of Them All.

Stop making a fool of yourself as I have no intention of ever replying to you again.

Incidentally, and this for both of you. Not a single soul has questioned my evolutionary science in the only venue that counts - the peer revued literature. They don't dare open that Pandora's Box of Troubles because it would be intellectual suicide for them to do so. I am not allowed to exist just as my sources never were either, the biggest and most persistent scandal in the history of science.

Nevertheless -

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for Darwinian mysticism."
John A. Davison

Maybe Bob O'Hara would like to be the first to criticize "our" science in a peer reviewed journal but I doubt it very much.

You might be interested in the fact that I forwarded my latest message here to Pee Zee Myers via his pesonal email, so don’t be surprised if you get orders from above to banish me! I will even predict it.

I predict he'll either ignore it (most likely), or will mock you (much less likely - I think he's bored of you).

BTW, I hope you told him your new pseudonym is Fluppy the Wonder Whelk.

"Stop making a fool of yourself as I have no intention of ever replying to you again."

Can you describe the ways in which I am making a fool of myself?

"Not a single soul has questioned my evolutionary science in the only venue that counts – the peer revued literature."

Has anyone ever questioned the existence of the flying spaghetti monster in peer-reviewed literature? If not, that still does not prove his noodly goodness is real. (Which he is, obviously, but that's beside the point.)

Anyhow, the original article above is not about anyone's evolutionary theories. So why are *any* of your comments here relevant?

Perhaps someone should start The International Journal of Troll Rebuttals?

Still quoting yourself, I see - I'd be interested in the views of a clinical psychologist on your rantings and behaviour here. Words like "delusional" would abound, I imagine.

I can see that my name has appeared here. I've read that somebody called my opinions "misguided".

I am afraid that misguided were just peculiar naturalistic duo Malthus and Darwin and their followers who see everywhere "struggle", "competition" and "natural selection".

Perhaps reader of this venue will do better if they read professor Davison's "Evolutionary manifesto". They would learn something about "natural selection" as well as some information and views they will never encounter in darwinian fantasy literature.

Then the inquisitive reader may continue reading some books by Adolf Portmann to see what the animal forms and coloration are about. Darwinian "forms follow function" in nature is great oversimplification, but one has to have broader horizon than that of a darwinian zealot to see the nature as it is.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to learn not to use words like "zealot" in the way that you do. You cannot simply use such words to describe those who hold opposing points of view and then expect any amount of respect in return.

Hehe. You can't be serious. See the blog run by doctor Myers titled proudly as "Random biological ejaculation from a godless liberal". Or see the blog Sanwalk run by professor Moran, who openly names proponents of intelligent design as "IDiots".

I suppose you take opinions of this darwinian zealots more than seriously, don't you? So don't be so touchy.

Btw. I mentioned the use of language on my blog. One has just to compare precise thinking and us of language by great scholar Adolf Portman with those "random ejaculation" by P.Z.Myers.

PZed and Larry are both certainly not the most diplomatic writers, but TBH I don't think either of them have much influence outside of the online community (I suspect most evolutionary biologists haven't heard of either of them).

I agree that neither show a great deal of respect, but it's also easy to pick out people on the evolution side who are more respectful (e.g. Ken Miller and Genie Scott), and those on the anti-evolution side who are as bad (um, almost anyone who can post at Uncommon Descent).

But as Bob has already pointed out, we *don't* take the name-calling and jokes seriously. Forgive me, I mistakenly thought you were going to present a sane interpretation of Fluppy the Wonder Whelk's ramblings.

I'd also like to point out that the use of "ejaculation" in this sense is perfectly correct, and is not necessarily linked with anything sexual.

Thanks for showing up. So far you are my only supporter here. That reminds me of Samuel Johnson's quip -

"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."

As for the mythical "struggle for existence," somebody once countered with -

"Animals are not always struggleing for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all."

There are no opposing points of view here. Neo-Darwinism is the biggest hoax in the history of science. That is not a point of view. That has been demonstrated countless times. The most intensive selection cannot transform one species even into a new member of the same Genus as Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Darwinian, proved beyond any doubt. The mystery is that after reporting his failure, Dobzhansky remained a Darwinian selectionist nevertheless, thereby violating the code to which every true scientist must adhere - namely, to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I am convinced that if Dobzhansky had remained in Russia with his mentor, Leo Berg, that Darwinism would have disappeared in disgrace long ago. When Dobzhanskyarrived in the New World he fell into the trap that Einstein described -

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment."
Ideas and Opinions, page 28

The geneticists at Columbia University were so convinced that Mendelism and mutation were the key to change that they imagined they had the answers to the mechanism of organic evolution. Dobzhansky joined them. Mendelism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and never did have. Actually, sexual (Mendelian) reproduction becomes the certain road to extinction as the fossil record has made very plain. Virtually every higher organism that reproduced strictly by sexual means eventually became extinct without further change. It happened to all of our own ancestors and it will happen to us as well.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

It's all over but the shouting folks. Get used to it as I have .

How is that for heresy? Is that heretical enough to produce some more insults? I'll be disappointed if it doesn't.

I am perfectly content as long as my comments are not deleted. I stand by every thing I have ever published in refereed journals as well as what I have presented on internet forums and will continue in that fashion for so long as I am able. Mendel was ignored for 35 years before he was accepted. I've only been ignored for 26 years. I must be doing something right when not a word of criticism has yet appeared in the peer reviewed literature.

I am ignored for exactly the same reason that Goldschmidt, Berg, Broom, Bateson, Schindewolf, Mivart, Osborn, Grasse, and all the other first class scientists of the past were ignored. We have not only gored the Darwinian ox, we have butchered and dissected it to display for all to see that it is nothing but the product of overactive atheist inspired imaginations. The Darwnian faithful have always pretended that they already knew the causes of progressive creative evolution so they hunkered down and decided to exclude all critics from their closed union shop of concensus. That is all they have ever done and all that they continue to do.

First I intended to back up correct and important John Davison's opinion regarding birds, but than I realised that it will not lead to any meaningful discussion.

Obviously nonsensinal babble of one participant here - with even more nonsensical alias - is wellcomed on this venue. The anonym reminds me of the folk over there on Bathroom wall on Panda's thumb who have just two topics - beer and abuses. Maybe to be an internet supporter of darwinism on this Scientopia blog means just that.

Thank you for your support Martin. You are right about meaningful discussion here. At least they let us speak which is more than is allowed at Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, richarddawkins.net and Panda's Thumb. There isn't a lot to discuss in science in any event and certainly nothing to debate. Science is the discovery of the Truth and transmitting it to receptive minds of which there have always been far too few.

Forgive my typo on consensus as concensus is not a word.

If there was ever an example of a consensus, it is an evolution driven by chance and natural selection, the only conceivable position acceptable to the congenital atheist mindset.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus."
Michael Crichton

This is not a response to Flabby Freddy, but he did raise an interesting point.

Christianity has no place in science any more than Darwinism does. They are both creeds. Both have personal Gods that have no place in science either.

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

The Darwinians worship at an altar consisting of a roulette wheel f lanked by a pair of very fuzzy dice above which hangs a portrait of Charles Robert Darwin playing with himself as he was prone to do.

"Christianity has no place in science any more than Darwinism does. They are both creeds."

You have just made that up.

Try learning about "falsifiable hypotheses".

"The Darwinians worship at an altar consisting of a roulette wheel f lanked by a pair of very fuzzy dice above which hangs a portrait of Charles Robert Darwin playing with himself as he was prone to do."

Did somebody say "nonsensical babble"?

So the extent of your argument is to call "Darwinians" chavs and Charles Darwin himself a w**ker?

Flabby Fred has a reading comprehension problem or he wouldn' t keep making a fool of himself. I'm just trying to help the pour soul. I'm surprised you let him continue. I guess you just want to continue being amused like I do. I'm having a ball myself as I always have. I hope you are too.

1) What has the original article above got to do with Darwin?
2) Why do you think calling Charles Darwin a w**ker helps persuade anyone to your point of view?
3) Are you just trying to provoke an insulting reaction, which you can then selectively quote on your own blog (which you seem to have begun to do with the above thread)?
4) How is the callosity on your right thigh?

Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that Fluppy will return, make some bizarre comment about Charles Darwin being a lesbian, and then quote part of the lyric from Mega-Armageddon Death by the Electro Hippies to prove that 2+2=5.

"Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that Fluppy will return, make some bizarre comment about Charles Darwin being a lesbian, and then quote part of the lyric from Mega-Armageddon Death by the Electro Hippies to prove that 2+2=5."

"I don’t converse with cowardly, anonymous blowhards, especially ones who have no credentials after they reveal their identity."

1) Is that another example of you not responding to me?
2) Why do you think I am anonymous, when you know my name?
3) Why do you think I am a "blowhard", when you yourself repeatedly shy away from answering my simple, straightforward questions?
4) Why do you respond with insults yet complain when others apparently insult you (and frequently, even when they don't)?
5) Wait a minute - how can you call someone "anonymous", and then admit that same person did indeed "reveal their identity"?
6) What "credentials" do you require? The above article is about statistics, I have qualifications and publications in refereed journals in statistics, so don't I have pretty much the right kind of credentials for commenting here?
7) When you say "I was talking to Bob O’Hara.", who are you talking to?
8 ) What is the capital of France?

(I thought I'd give you an easy one at the end there.)

I'm quite surprised you were so easily rattled, but you live and learn. Well, some of us do.

I entered this blog as I have entered all other blogs with a message which can never be reconciled with the Darwinian thesis. My reception from the beginning was what it has always been, ridicule, denigration and insult to which I naturally responded in kind. The only thing that is different about this blog is I am still allowed to speak for which I have already thanked you. Not satisfied to let me expose the Darwinian fairy tale with cold hard facts as we all have done countless times, you began the derogation and used someone else as an ally. That ended what could have been a productive dialogue. You even denigrated my friend and ally Martin. That was a mistake as I take my friendships very seriously.

Scientopia is a useless venue for discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution because the hosts here already know all about what produced the living world. There is no discussion here at scientopia as it is a groupthink, a closed union shop dominated by a common atheist ideology which rejects a purposeful, designed world. The same can be said for Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, Panda's Thumb, Sandwalk, EvC, and richarddawkins.net all of which blindly follow the atheist stimulus initiated by Charles Robert Darwin.

If anyone thinks I get "rattled" at the receptions I have always encountred, they are sadly mistaken. I thrive on that response as it is the best proof imaginable that it is my adversaries that are "rattled' not I.

The simple truth is that there has been a silent conspiracy for over 150 years that atheist inspired Darwinism is above criticism. Unlike my distinguished sources, not a Darwinian, an atheist or a religious fanatic in the lot, I have taken our message directly to our intellectual enemies, something they were unwilling or unable to do. That message is clear enough. There is not a word in the neoDarwinian paradigm that ever had anything to do with the title of Darwin's book beyond the generation of intraspecific varieties and subspeceis all of which are evolutionary blind alleys doomed to extinction without further change. The Darwinians can no longer ignore us because we are in their face, at least I am. As you know I have challenged Dawkins, Elsberry and Myers to a public confrontation which they won't even acknowledge let alone agree to.

What kind of scientist is it that refuses to defend his science publicly?

It is literally true that the Darwinians have always pretended that they never had credible adversaries. Nothing has changed during the century and a half that evolution has existed as an experimental and descriptive science. It continues to be what it has always been, the only possible thesis acceptable to the congenital atheist mindset.

The important thing for you realize is that when you all treat me with disdain, you are doing the same to every one of my sources on whose science my own securely rests.

Thanks again for permitting me to present my science on your blog. Now I am prepared to quietly depart, satisfied that I have left my message, but I can assure you that if I receive any more derogatory responses I will respond to them for as long as proves necessary.

You of course are welcome to participate on my weblog as you have allowed me to participate on yours.

"The important thing for you realize is that when you all treat me with disdain, you are doing the same to every one of my sources on whose science my own securely rests."

I think I can still sleep at night.

Let us go back to the very first sentence, in your very first comment in this thread, and ask the question which has been asked multiple times and not once received an answer...

"I know of not a single instance in which the implementation of statistics or probability clarified our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny."

What has the original article got to do with ontogeny or phylogeny?

Failing to even address simple questions such as these...well, that's a very poor show. Inventing feeble excuses about "not answering anonymous blowhards" does not impress anyone, I'm afraid to say.

Why do you come here, Fluppy? Ah yes, that's because people read Bob and Grrl's blogs, because they are interesting, well-thought out, thought-provoking and intelligent. You need to come here, Fluppy, because most sensible people avoid your web site unless they feel in need of a source of accidental humour.

All the pontificating, ranting, insulting, threatening behaviour in the world will not change that.

"Now I am prepared to quietly depart, satisfied that I have left my message, but I can assure you that if I receive any more derogatory responses I will respond to them for as long as proves necessary."

Since I am not going to be banned "for a bit," whatever that means, let me remind you that nobody knows who reads our blogs, at least I don't. All we know is how many visitors our blogs have on a given day. I run about 25 per day unless I provoke insults from some source. After I call attention to those insults my count can jump to as high as 100 then retun to the average which has been pretty constant.

I am much more outgoing than most bloggers. I spread my heresies far and wide, confident that in the words of Oscar Wilde -

"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."

The trouble is I have so alienated myself with my candor that very few blogs will allow me to speak, a sure sign that they are frightfully insecure about their own position. If WE were regarded as bufoons, all the blogs would welcome OUR silly ideas so they could lampoon them, a result that has yet to materialize. I prefer my interpretation which is that OUR adversaries are terrified of US because WE have demolished every aspect of the atheist inspired hoax to which the Darwinian faithful cling in desperation. I believe they are congenitally incompetent to recognize the PLANNED universe, both animate and inanimate, that many of US have always known to be the only conceivable cause of the world in which we find ourselves.

OUR adversaries are not only blind as the proverbial bat but, like most pure white, blue-eyed cats, stone deaf as well. Don't take my word for it.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 204

"The trouble is I have so alienated myself with my candor that very few blogs will allow me to speak, a sure sign that they are frightfully insecure about their own position."

Or, a sure sign that you hijack blogs with your irrelevant nonsense.

Sorry, I mean...

Or, a SURE sign that YOU hijack blogs WITH your irrelevant NONSENSE.

"I prefer my interpretation which is that OUR adversaries are terrified of US because WE have demolished every aspect of the atheist inspired hoax to which the Darwinian faithful cling in desperation."

You are living in a very strange fantasy world. Tell me, who killed JFK?

Twelve years after Darwin's Origin of Species, St. George Mivart killed Darwinism when he asked (and I paraphrase) - how can natural selection be involved with a structure that has not yet appeared? That question has never been answered because it cannot be answered. Mivart's unanswered question proves that natural selection could never have played a role in the ascending sequence of complexity that the fossil record clearly displays. Ernst Mayr in his "Growth of Biological Thought" doesn't even mention Mivart. I recommend my essay "What's Wrong With Darwinism?" in which Mivart is the first of several who disposed of Darwin's Victorian fantasy. It is available on my webpage as well as in my book "The Unpublished Evolution Papers of John A. Davison." Lulu publishers.

I told both of you that I would be happy to disappear if you would just stop treating "us" with contempt. It is very simple but you don't seem to get it. I'll continue to give you guys something to "chew on" as long as you treat me like a "chew toy." Got that? Write that down!

My very first message here was to point out that statistics and probability never had anything to do with organic evolution. Neither do Population Genetics, Mendelian Genetics, natural selection, artificial selection, isolation, founder effect or any of the other silly Darwinian notions. The whole sequence from beginning to end was planned by an unknown number of programmers, none of whom are apparently still with us. However, let me add that no one knows anything about god or gods, past or present, living or dead, and those whom claim that they do like Dicky "blind moutaineering watchmaker" Dawkins and Pee Zee "random biological ejaculations" Myers are just making damn fools of themselves with their hate filled desecration of the Judeo-Christian ethic. Neither one of those blaspheming egomaniacs has published a word on the one major issue which remains unresolved - the mechanism by which organic evolution took place, a phenomenon, I believe, that is no longer in progress.

Potty-mouth Zachary Myers is even ashamed to reveal his journal publications, assuming he has any.

One thing I have learned from the Darwinian so-called "forums" is that those who frequent them refuse to defend themselves from criticism, choosing instead to insult their adversaries rather than engage them in civil discussion. No scientist worth his salt would ever refuse to defend his science. You Darwinians never gave adversaries a chance because you always refused to admit that you had any. Well you have some now.

It is obvious that no one here can refute anything "we" have presented here. All I hear is insult after insult with no attempt to refute "our" thesis. That is fine with me as it proves "our" point which is precisely why I came here in the first place. There is plenty more where this came from and as long as you keep insulting "us," I will respond on behalf of my distinguished predecessors, using their words so you will know exactly whom it is that you are insulting.

"My very first message here was to point out that statistics and probability never had anything to do with organic evolution."

Which is precisely my point, as Bob's article had nothing to do with evolution, and therefore you immediately treated this forum with contempt.

"....as long as you keep insulting “us,”...."

Once again, you're not fooling anyone. There is no "us" here, it is *you* we are treating with contempt. And we are treating you with contempt not because of your theories, but because of the way you behave here.

"Potty-mouth Zachary Myers...."

Can I remind you that you decided to call Charles Darwin a w**ker here, on more than one occasion?

But wait! There's more fail!

On the one hand, you say this:

"One thing I have learned from the Darwinian so-called “forums” is that those who frequent them refuse to defend themselves from criticism, choosing instead to insult their adversaries rather than engage them in civil discussion."

On the other hand, you say this:

"However, let me add that no one knows anything about god or gods, past or present, living or dead, and those whom claim that they do like Dicky “blind moutaineering watchmaker” Dawkins and Pee Zee “random biological ejaculations” Myers are just making damn fools of themselves with their hate filled desecration of the Judeo-Christian ethic."

Yet again, you are not fooling anyone, Fluppy. You accuse others of resorting to insults yet your own "arguments" seem to consist of nothing but.

I must admit I'm starting to feel uneasy about all of this, as if I'm taking to task someone who has genuine mental health issues.

So now I understand that I am regarded here as mentally incompetent? You are the one that allows these insults. Do you believe I'm daft? That is an important question and I expect an answer. Myers has already claimed I'm insane, so don't be shy.

Furthermore, It is no insult when I describe Dawkins and Myers with their own words. Would you deny that Dawkins and Myers desecrate the Judeo-Christian ethic, the basis of Western Civilization?

Keep calling me names and I will keep reacting. Trust me. I have given up trying to reason with "our" adversaries. I am now employing the time tested tactic of getting them to commit intellectual suicide with their own words and actions. MarcCC, who as near as I can tell runs this whole enterprise, has already banished me from his blog after heaping all kinds of insults on me. What is keeping you from doing the same? Surely you must realize by now that I am not going to go away with my tail between my legs. That is not my style.

In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that this thread is one of the most active, so maybe you would like to keep it going as long as possible. It is all about power, what Henry Kissinger called the "ultimate aphrodesiac." So wield your power like others do. I'm having a ball myself and I hope you are as well.

"So now I understand that I am regarded here as mentally incompetent? You are the one that allows these insults."

It wasn't an insult, it was a statement of a genuinely held concern. You seem unable to function rationally.

"Would you deny that Dawkins and Myers desecrate the Judeo-Christian ethic, the basis of Western Civilization?"

I will make no comment on this - it has nothing to do with science. You cannot seem to tell the difference between science and religion.

"Keep calling me names and I will keep reacting."

Other than the "Fluppy" business, the last post of mine did not call you names. Wrong again, I'm afraid.

"Trust me. I have given up trying to reason with “our” adversaries. I am now employing the time tested tactic of getting them to commit intellectual suicide with their own words and actions. "

Fluppy, you inhabit a strange world of your own where concepts such as logic, reason and evidence have been turned on their head. You contradict yourself and babble on so often that you have committed "intellectual suicide" yourself dozens of times over.

I am waiting for a response from O'Hara. I don't let others represent me and neither should anyone else let others represent them.

I want to know if he agrees with Pee Zee Myers that -"the man has lost it" and "is clearly nuts." Incidentally, according to David Springer aka DaveScot, William Dembski thinks I'm "nuts" too. Fred the Bulbous Squidge aka Mark John Brewer obviously thinks I'm crazy. He will join the list of those who are willing to deprecate me using their real names. It is an astonishly short list, notable by who is not on it, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Wesley Royce Elsberry, both of whom let their minions do that which they dare not do themselves.

I am willing to bet that Bob O 'Hara will refrain from making any remarks concerning my sanity. He too will let others do it for him and for the same reason. It is called fear, fear that everything he believes may prove to have with no merit whatsoever!

"Discretion is the better part of valor."
Shakespeare

Does this sound like whining and moaning? If it does, let me know as there is plenty more waiting in the wings where this is coming from.

The important thing as far as I am concerned is this; those who claim I am daft must think the same of my distinguished predecessors because 90% of my science came directly from them and I am supremely confident that they would all agree with the 10% I have added.

"The important thing as far as I am concerned is this; those who claim I am daft must think the same of my distinguished predecessors because 90% of my science came directly from them and I am supremely confident that they would all agree with the 10% I have added."

No, once again, nobody is fooled by this whining.

Contempt rains upon you for how you act on forums such as this. Your treatment here has nothing whatsoever to do with your "thesis".

From someone that calls himself "Fred the Bulbous Squidge" (ROTFL) and calls JA Davison "Fluppy the Wonder Whelk", your comment is just laughable.

Why are 99% of atheists and Darwinists so determined to remain nitwits incapable of either discernment or logic?

It's hard to say for sure.

I sort of suspect the answer is that some deleterious mutations have occurred in genes related to brain function, due to prolonged exposure to stupidity from Dawkins, Myers, Singer or some other walking, intellectual disaster area of that ilk.

I'm not sure I agree with John on the whole of his hypothesis, but he is light years ahead of poor Darwin and all his duped neo-Darwinist disciples to this day.

Darwinism continues to demonstrate itself as a fairy tale for grown-ups every passing day of its persistent failure to perform.

For the record, Mark Chiu-Carroll has deleted the entire thread that he introduced about me. At least I can't find it. I have asked him to reinstate it. It better be there soon if Scientopia intends to retain any semblance of decency.

I see MarkCC has reinstated the thread about me. However I remain banished from commenting there as I am from most blogs dealing with our origins.

I have composed an essay based in part on my experiences with MarkCC and Pee Zee Myers. It is called "An Essay on Abuse" and may be found as #3 in the "New essays and and essays in progress" button at the top of my introductory page. I would be interested in any response it might evoke here.

"Now I am prepared to quietly depart, satisfied that I have left my message, but I can assure you that if I receive any more derogatory responses I will respond to them for as long as proves necessary."

and:

"I told both of you that I would be happy to disappear if you would just stop treating “us” with contempt."

This not the first blog in which my terminal comments have gone unanswered. I have been doing a slow burn about the way I have been treated here. I request a public apology and that from a real person, not from someone who is not only pseudonymous but has no biological credentials either. Of course, if an apology does not materialize, that will become a matter of record just as did the insults I have received from Paul Zachary Myers and Mark Chiu-Carroll. I don't care to be regarded as a "chew toy" any longer. I'm actually being very magnanimous, all things considered. If scientopia expects to be taken seriously, I recomend that it change the manner in which it deals with those who find its methods unacceptable. I believe an apology could go a long way in that direction. I am a very forgiving person but one with the memory of an elephant as my writings testify.

"This not the first blog in which my terminal comments have gone unanswered."

Pardon? The only question you have asked since October 19 is "Still having fun Bob?". And if you make another comment here, the comments above won't be "terminal" will they?

"I request a public apology and that from a real person, not from someone who is not only pseudonymous but has no biological credentials either. "

Hey! You looked up "anonymous" in the dictionary! Well done!

Lucky you didn't ask me for an apology, else I might actually have died laughing.

"I don’t care to be regarded as a “chew toy” any longer."

Then stop being one, and start making some kind of sense.

"I am a very forgiving person but one with the memory of an elephant as my writings testify."

The memory of an elephant and the cognitive skills of a watermelon, by your witterings here.

Look, this is past ridiculous. You simply will not accept that you make no sense whatsoever, and inconsistency appears to be your watchword. You whine and moan about being insulted, and then yet at other times you say "I thrive on contempt."

Now please bang on for a bit about your thesis, your love of being insulted, your being appalled at being insulted, how clever you are, how atheists are murderers, how you are right, how "Pee Zee Myers" killed your kittens, etc etc etc etc

I want to thank Bob O'Hara for two very important aspects of my presence here. First, he has not banished me from speaking as Dawkins, Meyers, Elsberry and others have all done long ago. I regard that as a sign of progress.

As long as I am permitted to hold forth here, O'Hara will avoid becoming my intellectual enemy.

Second, and just as important, he has performed a very helpful service by describing me as a "chew toy." That description is accurate and serves to characterize Dawkins, Myers, Elsberryand others to perfection. While O'Hara allows others participants here to heap all sorts of verbal abuse on me, he carefully avoids doing so himself which is a virtue. Both Dawkins and Elsberry employ that same tactic which is why I have not treated them as I have Mark Chiu-Carroll and Paul Zachary Myers. I ignore insult from unknown adversaries as I do from those who have no credentials as biological scientists. When I discover the identity of adversaries, the first thing I do is "Google" them and, if they don't show up, I ignore them. Bulbous Fred is in that category. However, when a real person, especially one with some credentials, decides to get down in the gutter about me, I will expose that person. I always have and always will. That is my responsibility as a scientist and a citizen. Those in positions of influence who will treat a fellow investigator with naked loathing, as both Myers and Chiu-Carroll have done, deserve my special attention. They have already received it!

As I have explained, I don't respond to lightweights like Flabby Fred. Not that it matters, but is he obese as suggested from the way he describes himself? He obviously doesn't have any self respect. Neither do self-named "Rev Big Dumb Chimp" and "Second Class" and "oldmanintheskydidn'tdo it" and many other denizens of "After The Bar Closes," Wesley Royce Elsberry's "inner sanctum," where the effete elite meet daily to play "can you top this? with each other.

Sweet Jesus Bob, have you no pride? Is this blog no better than After the Bar Closes? So it seems to me as I believe it would to any objective observer. Do you have any idea of how you are perceived. You permit pseudos like Bulbous Fred to overtly lie about who I am. You are responsible for what transpires here or is Bulbous Fred the one in charge? Do you have any role here at all? None that I can see.

Meanwhile, here is my thought for the day from one of my favorite sources -

"On the border of science, however, a theoretical system gradually appeared which claimed that chance accounts for the genesis and evolution of the biocosm. Its advocates have faith in chance; they are certain that it unfailingly provides the living being with all that it requires."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.

That's is exactly where you folks all are, "on the border of science" and certainly not part of it - the perfect description of the fairy tale to which every Darwinian mystic faithfully subscribes.

And which overt lie would that be, pray tell? Oh do be a dear and let on!

"That’s is exactly where you folks all are, “on the border of science” and certainly not part of it – the perfect description of the fairy tale to which every Darwinian mystic faithfully subscribes."

That's a little better, but still not close to the comedy gold you were giving us earlier. I think you need to try a little harder.

Perhaps we should start giving your posts marks out of 10? We could have different rating categories, such as: Unintentional Humour; Self-Contradiction; Irrationality; General Ignorance; Lack of Consistency; General Bonkersness.

And by the way, doesn't "Sweet Jesus" count as blasphemy? I'm surprised at you taking the name of Our Lord in vain. Why don't you show some respect for the God who created you?

I wish someone here would give me an example in which any published scientist ever found it necessary to defend on some Mickey Mouse weblog like this one work that had already survived peer revue and was freely available on the libraries of the world

Why don't you ask Clinton Richard Dawkins to defend his mindless drivel here? The man is nutty as a fruit cake, living in a fantasy world which he has constructed all by himself. "The Selfish Gene" is without question the most ridiclous assertion in the history of science. His subsequent fantasies, each progressively more ridiculous than the last, have labeled him as a hopeless, feckless ideologue, trapped in his congenital atheism, utterly unaware that Darwinism has died a thousand deaths since 1859. The man is a flaming joke. Furthermore, he is a spineless coward just like Paul Zachary Myers, his New World clone. Those two creeps have done more to impede evolutionary science than anyone else with the possible exception of Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr before them, another pair of homozygous atheists. The whole Natural Selection hoax has been kept alive by six generations of left wing godless whackos and their equally deranged students none of whom qualify as scientists. It is the most persistent mass hysteria in the history of civilization, perpetrated and then perpetuated by pretending that Darwin's Victorian pipe dream was the answer to the great mystery of organic evolution.

The simple truth is that Natural Selection is now and always was ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY, serving to prevent rather than promote progressive change, exactly as Leo Berg claimed eighty-eight years ago.

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406

That is why every chickadee looksand sounds like every other chickadee - chickadee-dee-dee. chickadee-dee-dee .

That is my remedial lesson for today. Let's see if this one will remain. The last one sure didn't.

It's your blog and you alone are responsible for what happens here, just as Elsberry is responsible for AtBC and Panda's Thumb, Myers for Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb, Mark Chiu-Carroll for Good Math/Bad Math, Dembski for Uncommon Descent, etc, etc.

It is very revealing that you encourage Flabby Fred and reply to him, while I address you by your real name. Just who is doing the insulting here? Not I! You should banish Fred as he has contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion here. All he does is copy and paste and mumble drivel. Actually, there has been no discussion here anyway. If you could just say something rational I would be happy to respond. Apparently you are content to let me destroy everything you hold dear without offering a word of rebuttal. I'll use this opportunity to spread my science for as long as you permit. At least you let me hold forth unlike the Dawkins/Myers Elsberry "Axis of Intellectual Evil." I really appreciate it.

"Any port in a storm."
anonymous

"Fluppy" aka John A. Davison offered the unvarnished truth with every word. You folks are so hypnotized by the atheist "Darwinian delusion" that you couldn't recognize the truth if you met it on the street. One of these decades you will come to grips with the fact that you have wasted your entire lives chasing a phantom.

The genesis of the phyla stopped in the Ordovician; of the classes, in the Jurassic; of the orders, in the Paleocene-Eocene. After the Eocene, the evolutionary "sap" still flowed through a few orders, since mammals and birds continued to specialize in various directions and invaded all the terrestrial and marine biotopes previously occupiued by reptiles....We are certain that it does not operate today as it did in the remote past.
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 70

I have extended Grasse's conclusions by claiming that a new bona fide species has not appeared in historical times and probably not since Homo sapiens first appeared in Europe around 100,000 years ago. My challenge to produce a new species and its immediate ancestor has never been met and I don't imagine that it ever will be. It is perfectly obvious to me that the whole scenario was planned in advance and when its goal, the production of human beings was met, evolution stopped dead in its tracks. All we see today is extinction without a single replacement. That is my thesis and I am prepared to defend it here, on my blog or anyplace else.

"It is very revealing that you encourage Flabby Fred and reply to him, while I address you by your real name. Just who is doing the insulting here? Not I! You should banish Fred as he has contributed absolutely nothing to the discussion here."

Ah, after another look at your own blog, I now see what this is about.

You really are struggling with the fact that you can't "banish" me from here, aren't you?

"Apparently you are content to let me destroy everything you hold dear without offering a word of rebuttal."

You aren't "destroying" anything, you are ranting on like a lunatic. Big difference, Fluppy. You are baiting Bob to "banish" me, and to respond to your witterings, but Bob is far too savvy for you.

I must admit though, you are very good at baiting. The best, in fact. So much so I'm prepared to admit that you are the Master Baiter!

and all for the same reason. They exposed Darwin's Victorian fantasy for what it was, nothing but the invention of an overactive human imagination. Darwin's celebrated "natural selection" has about the same validity as the novel by his contemporary, Mary Shelley - "Frankenstein."

Darwinism has died a thousand deaths but rises like the sphynx from its own ashes because it is the only conceivable hypothesis acceptable to the congenital, "born that way," atheist mindset that represents the dominant element of contemporary evolutionary science.

The inertia of this "movement" is enormous and, like any other body in movement, it is not easily stopped. Sooner or later it will come to a screeching halt to be remembered as the biggest embarrassment in the history of science and all those who supported it will finally be exposed.

"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde

I rest my case as I have better things to do with my life than further to waste the precious time that remains.

You will find my latest comment preserved as an "essay in progress" at the top of my introductory page. Unless someone challenges what I have presented here, which is very unlikely, I have nothing more to add at Scientopia which, I am convinced, is just another bastion of Darwinian mysticism and an embarrassment to evolutionary science.

and incidentally, the frontispiece to Leo Berg's "Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law."

I also just noticed that Berg substituted "she" for "it" in Huxley's quip. They don't call her Mother Nature for nothing! Knowing Berg's great attention to detail, I suspect "she" was the original, not "it" as I and others have assumed. I will have to check that out.

Huxley rendered another opinion appropriate to Scientopia and Darwinism in general -

"Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority."

I'm trying to escape this blog gracefully but you are making it difficult for me. I hope you are still having as much fun as I am.

As long as you permit Flabby Fred to make a perfect fool of himself (and of your blog), I am going nowhere. It is entirely up to you. You and grrlscientist run this weblog and are responsible for what happens in it. You seem bound and determined to discredit me by unleashing a rank amateur as an opponent. That is the same tactic that PeeZee Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins all use. It hasn't phased me. Quite the contrary, it stimulates me to greater efforts.

In what way am I an "amateur"? Given that this thread was originally about statistics, and I am indeed a professional statistician, it would seem more correct to suggest that you are in fact the "amateur" here...

Speaking of statistics, here are some interesting statistics about Scientopia. Scientopia has 25 blogs, the vast majority of which have very little activity. The two most active blogs are those which have threads which involve me.

The first is "Lucky me: The return of John Davison to GM/BM introduced by Mark Chiu-Carroll which produced 140 comments terminating shortly af ter Mark banished me.

The other thread which I voluntarilly entered is "The simpler truth about statistics" in" This Scientific Life," the blog headed by Bob O'Hara and grrl scientist. That thread is still active with 188 comments so far.

So it seems I am able to evoke some pretty strong responses at Scientopia which I take to be a good thing because isn't that what weblogs are supposed to be all about? I wish I could do as well on my own weblog. Of course I should add that I am not getting much support from those who agree with my science but that is to be expected since I have rejected both Darwinian mysticism and religious fundamentalism. However, I thank Dave Springer and Martin Cadra for their support during my stay here.

In any event I am pleased that Iwas able to stimulate some activity here at Scientopia which seems to be lacking the activity found at Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes, Panda's Thumb, richarddawkins.net, Sandwalk, EvC, ARN and Uncommon Descent.

In any event, I wish Scientopia all the success it can muster and I was happy to provide some stimulus to that desirable end.

Wow, you're so patient here! I was hoping for comments about stats and politics stuff, so I was a bit disappointed about the hijacking. The 'full name dropping' (especially when people drop their *own* full names - ego much!) is so annoying and generally a reliable indicator of a crank or pest. Well, anyway, I will keep reading, as the post was enjoyable, and hope that better conversations develop in other posts of interest; I just wanted to let you know, like the other reader who commented, that people (at least two!) do read your comments.

I pay no attention to pseudonymous participants. I pay attention only to those whose identity they have proudly revealed. I delight in their insults which I collect, store and reproduce on my weblog. I have supreme confidence in my science and that of the great biologists on which it is based. Darwinians have no confidence in their thesis which is why they no longer even make a pretense of defending it. Instead of coming to grips with reality they choose to mindlessly attack anyone who criticizes the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. Those who insult me are insulting every one of my sources. It is I who has given Bob O'Hara, Mark John Brewer, Wesley Elsberry, Paul Zachary Myers, Larry Moran, Clinton Richard Dawkins, etc, etc, something to chew on. They have become my "chew toys" which gives me great pleasure. At least we all know who we are.

"Davison is the Darwinian's worst nightmare."
Terry Trainor

For a better undertanding of our position I recommend that they all buy my book "The Unpublished Evolution Papers Of John A. Davison."
Lulu publishers.

Look at it this way. I am calling attention to your weblog, to your Darwinism and to your denial that you have credible adversaries. The only difference between This Scientific Life on the one hand and Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes, Uncommon Descent and richarddawkins.net on the other hand, is that you haven't banished me yet. I take that to mean that unlike those venues, you remain supremely confident of the godless Darwinian proposal that there was no guidance in organic evolution. If those other weblogs had your confidence they never would have banished me. Rather, they would have treated me as you have as a "chew toy," someone to be denigrated and treated with open contempt. At least you haven't stooped to the level reached by Mark Chiu-Carroll by using the f word in a frantic and revealing attempt to discredit me, followed by banishment from any further discussion. You are to be complimented on your relative tolerance and I appreciate it. That places Bob O'Hara a cut above Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Wesley Royce Elsberry and other venues that must control their membership.

There is a reason I have been banished from those weblogs. By silencing me they don't have to deal with me or with the sources which have produced 90% of my thesis. As they always have, the Darwinian faithful continue to imagine that they have solved the mechanism of organic evolution when in fact they haven't scratched the surface of that great mystery.

Those who must silence their critics are not scientists. The true scientist will defend his conclusions until they are proven to be without merit. Darwinism in all its manifestations is the most failed proposition in the history of science. That it still has followers is a scandal unprecedented in the annals of experimental and descriptive biological science. Their refusal to defend their convictions renders them dangerous members of the intellectual community.

"A doctrine that is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with uncalculable harm to human progress."
Albert Einstein

I entered this blog because it was run by a Darwinian statistician. My very first message was to declare that statistics has provided nothing to our understanding of organic evolution. Evolution was a planned phenomenon from beginning to end. That is my thesis as it was that of Robert Broom, Leo Berg, William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf and Pierre Grasse.

By treating me with open contempt as both you and O'Hara have done, you have degraded yourselves not us. Live with it as I am sure you are incapable of apology just like Mark Chiu-Carroll, Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Greg Laden, Wesley Royce Elsberry or any other Darwinian I have ever known. I have never encountered a Darwinian who ever admitted he might be wrong about the Darwinian fantasy he silently protects. That is why they are known far and wide as pseudoscientists. Their refusal to defend their childish thesis has led me to call them Darwimps.

Real scientists treat one another with respect and always have.

"I get no respect."
Rodney Dangerfield

ergo - Darwinians are not scientists. They are "dyed-in-the-wool," "prescribed," "born that way," "born to lose" losers.

Incidentally, Ernst Mayr described himself as a "dyed-in-the wool" Darwnian on page 132 of his opus minimus "The Growth of Biological Thought," a book, like Darwin's "Origin of Species," containing absolutely nothing of significance about the great mystery of organic evolution- absolutely nothing.

"I entered this blog because it was run by a Darwinian statistician. My very first message was to declare that statistics has provided nothing to our understanding of organic evolution."

This thread has nothing to do with evolution.

Therefore your first message is irrelevant here. It's in the WRONG PLACE.

The RIGHT PLACE would be a thread after an article discussing, say, statistics and evolution. But even then, once you've said what you have to say, what on earth is the point in repeating yourself, when nobody is listening?

You might as well just keep adding comments that say "poo wiggle bum", since they would be just as relevant here.

Before I decided to dedicate the rest of my energies to the great mystery of organic evoution, I had published, among several other highly significant papers, three solo authored papers in the journal Science, second only to Nature in its readership. I am just as much a scientist as were every one of my distinguished predecessors, not one of whom was a religious or atheist fanatic. Nor did any of them stoop to the methods you employ here.

Incidentally, your reward for continuing to make it impossible for me to leave this blog gracefully will be, along with Bob O'Hara, who allows you to speak, to become prominent figures in my essay in progress - "An Essay on Insults" I hope you will enjoy your self generated notoriety. You and Bob have sure earned it just as did Mark Chiu-Carroll, Paul Zachary Myers, and most recently Glen Laden, another arrogant lightweight, mindless snot just like yourself.

By my nature a forgiving person, I will give you one chance only to formally apologize for the way the pair of you have conspired against we real scientists who have reduced the Darwnian hoax to the shambles it has always been.

"Before I decided to dedicate the rest of my energies to the great mystery of organic evoution, I had published, among several other highly significant papers, three solo authored papers in the journal Science, second only to Nature in its readership. I am just as much a scientist as were every one of my distinguished predecessors, not one of whom was a religious or atheist fanatic. Nor did any of them stoop to the methods you employ here."

This is all IRRELEVANT to the topic of the article.

You are GATE-CRASHING.

You are in the WRONG PLACE.

You are acting rudely for being here at all with your off-topic rants.

You are insulting Bob's tolerance and humility by continuing to post comments such as the above.

You are never taken seriously BECAUSE OF YOUR APPALLING BEHAVIOUR ON BLOGS, AND BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEEM TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN RATIONAL DEBATE.

"Incidentally, your reward for continuing to make it impossible for me to leave this blog gracefully will be, along with Bob O’Hara, who allows you to speak, to become prominent figures in my essay in progress – “An Essay on Insults” I hope you will enjoy your self generated notoriety. You and Bob have sure earned it just as did Mark Chiu-Carroll, Paul Zachary Myers, and most recently Glen Laden, another arrogant lightweight, mindless snot just like yourself. "

Once again, you are not fooling anyone.

You continue to post here because you have the mentality of a truculent four-year old, determined to have the "last word". Even then, we left off commenting a while back, thinking you had finished, but YOU, Fluppy, yes, YOU - not me, not Bob, but YOU - decided to starting posting here again. You had no intention of "leaving", even when we had stopped posting.

Why do you have to "stoop" to using phrases such as "arrogant, mindless snot", when you claim to be above such things?

"By my nature a forgiving person, I will give you one chance only to formally apologize for the way the pair of you have conspired against we real scientists who have reduced the Darwnian hoax to the shambles it has always been."

But by your own comment above -

“Real scientists treat one another with respect and always have.”

- you are not a real scientist, according to YOUR definition.

As for an apology - you are living in a fantasy land. You are hopelessly deluded, and there seems to be no hope for you ever making any kind of sense on anything at all.

Neither Bob nor I have commented on your work. Neither of us has denigrated that. The truth is, we're not interested. The especial reason we don't comment on it here is that this is the WRONG PLACE.

Why Bob O'Hara permits you to destroy the crediblity of "This Scientific Life" is beyond me. I conclude that the pair of you are bent on your own destruction as rational observers. Your silly insults label you you as childish bufoons. This blog is even more infantile than After the Bar Closes (if that is conceivable). All that you know how to do is copy and paste everything I present without ever offering anything rational in response.

You just won't leave me alone so you are just going to have to pay the price for your foolishness. In my "An Essay On Insults" I originally intended to limit my subject matter to the two worst offenders in the history of forum communication, Mark "filthy mouth" Chiu-Carroll and Paul Zachary "random biological ejaculating" Myers. I have changed my mind. I am going to include a number of you lesser lights by exposing each of you with your own words and deeds. Bob O'Hara will become famous as being the person who described me as a "chew toy" and "Fluppy the Wonder Whelk" and you will become his willing slave who does his dirty work for him. Darwinians all use the same methods. Whenever possible they employ pseudonymous blowhards to speak on their behalf. I pay no attention to unknown adversaries but Mark John Brewer has let himself be known and will be exposed. Wesley Royce Elsberry has hundreds of volunteers including Bob O'Hara and so does Paul Zachary Myers. The lid is now off Pandora's Box of Darwinian Troubles. The whole sordid business is now on public display with all the major players identified with their own words and shabby methods. History will judge us all by the way we treat our fellow human beings. I intend to leave as little of that record to the imagination as humanly possible.

Enjoy your brief moments in the sun you worshippers of the Great God Chance. I have chronicled your dying days so that subsequent generations can fully appreciate the full extent to which blind ideology can inhibit and delay the quest for Truth and Knowledge. It is a dirty job and one I thoroughly enjoy.

"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde

What is mine is what others permit me to record, wherever that may be. I will continue to criticize the enemies of Truth and Knowledge where I am allowed for as long as I breathe. It is my destiny, just as it is the destiny of Mark John Brewer to behave like a perfect boor. The fate of each of us was sealed millions of years ago. Some of us have been luckier than others.

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

"It is my destiny, just as it is the destiny of Mark John Brewer to behave like a perfect boor."

I don't believe you.

I want to see evidence.

You've said I'm a "perfect boor". Unless you can provide clear and incontrovertible evidence, then all you have done is resort to name-calling, precisely the activity you claim both to despise and encourage from others.

"Evidence" is the last thing that Darwinians want to see. I have published not only the "evidence" provided by my several predecessors but added to it my own "evidence" in the form of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) both of which are in the peer reviewed literature. If you think I am going to provide "evidence" here you are sadly mistaken. Do you really expect me to treat you and the countless others like you with respect when all you many do is treat me with naked contempt?

You don't even have any respect for yourself. You remind me of others of your ilk who practice the same disgusting methods, trash like "oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit," Rev. Big Dumb Chimp, and 95% (a conservative estimate) of the clientele that hang out in such intellectual cesspools as After the Bar Closes and Pharyngula. Even much more civilized blogs like richarddawkins.net are crawling with pseudonymous lightweights blindly obedient to a man who will prove to be a monumental embarrassment to British science if he hasn't, as I am convinced, done so already.

The "proof" that Darwinism is a useless hypothesis has been with us since his infantile proposal first appeared in 1859. Adam Sedgwick, his own Geology Professsor, ridiculed it the day after it appeared. Thomas Huxley didn't defend Darwin so much as he ridiculed Bishop (Soapy Sam) Wilberforce, which was his real purpose in the debate. The biggest misconception in the history of science is that Huxley was ever a Darwinian.

You Darwinians, much to my delight, go right on digging your own graves. My self-appointed task has become to encourage you to the best of my abilities which so far have been remarkably effective. It is much too late for you all now no matter what you say or do. The "Darwinista," like the "Fundamentalista" have each established beyond any doubt that ideology trumps science, that as so often happens in science, when opposing factions clash, both sides prove to be dead wrong.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environments. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions....In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep on must, above all, be a sheep."
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.

I am delighted to grant you the last word, a statement that proves beyond any question that you are a masochistic, illiterate buffoon of the highest calibre. You provide a whole new meaning to the old saying -

"P.S. While I had every intention of leaving Scientiopia, Bob O’Hara and his crony “Fred the Bulbous Squidge” aka Mark John Brewer refuse to let me leave gracefully, insulting me after my terminal comments, thereby ensuring my responses in what as far as I am concerned is a game I am willing to play for as long as they choose."

Thanks for your masochistic cooperation. That coward Greg Laden won't allow me to speak now at his pathetic little blog, so I will just have to deal with you and Bob O'Hara. If you had an ounce of common sense, you would realize what a perfect fool you are making of yourself . Sooner or later Bob O'Hara will wake up and muzzle you. Until he does, I say let the games continue.

What "games"? What are you going on about now?? This isn't a game, this is you making nonsensical comments and me pointing it out!!

What on earth do you mean by "masochistic cooperation"?? In what way am I being masochistic?

Why is Greg a "coward"? He just thinks you're an imbecile, and he thinks that because (wait for it) you have acted like an imbecile! No, really, you have! I know you think you haven't, but you have! You act like a spoilt little child, angry because nobody wants to make him king.

There is no point in asking you to specify precisely how I am making a fool of myself, because you and I both know it is not true, and you failed to answer that "challenge" when I posed it before.

If Bob is going to "muzzle" anybody, it will be you and I together because he's sick of all this pointless bickering.

As for "common sense"....if you could only see how often you contradict yourself, how often you say one thing then do another, fail to follow through what you say (e.g. not responding to me ever again! leaving the last word to me! etc etc)...

You cannot handle people disagreeing with you, and you cannot deal with people talking back at you. You treat people disgracefully, and then when they complain you run home crying to mummy that those horrid boys "insulted" you. Then like a sulky little princess you decide you're going to spite them all by writing a snotty little essay about how much you actually like being insulted, actually, thank you very much.

Any human being stupid enough to degrade himself as Fred the Bulbous Squidge deserves all the contempt I can deliver. I am going to make you famous you illiterate nitwit. I may already have. Go to my webpage and click on the New Essays and Essays in Progress button and scan down to the most recent essays. There you will find you and Bob O'Hara described in your own words. It is always with a person's own words and deeds that his character is revealed for all to see. You two have done that to perfection just like Pee Zee Myers, Wesley Elsberry, Richard Dawkins and Mark Chiu-Carroll before you. You all will make the second edition of my book if I live long enough to see it published. Trust me and keep up the good work.

Just as you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make hin drink, so you can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend. You Darwinians are the perfect example of that congenital disability. You already know the causes of evolution and always have. You lose, we win.

Every blog at Scientopia is about evolution because a planned evolution is what produced the entire living world. Unfortunately, Scientopia has decided that the causes of the great mystery of phylogenesis are already known. It has joined with Pharyngula, RichardDawkins.net, Panda's Thumb, After the Bar Closes, Sandwalk, EvC, and every other Darwinian, chance-crazed lunatic asylum by assuming that not only is there no God or Gods at present, but that there never were any. By preserving that idiotic philosophy, they have committed intellectual suicide and ensured their demise as nothing but embarrassing footnotes in the history of evolutionary science. Each of the leaders of this persistent hoax and every one of his followers will go to his grave, as did all his predecessors, as a disgrace to his family, his society and especially his personal status as a rational observer of the world into which he unfortunately was delivered. I am delighted to be able to play a role in this inevitable result.

"Every blog at Scientopia is about evolution because a planned evolution is what produced the entire living world."

Brilliant! Fluppy, you've excelled yourself! That is quite likely the most stupid thing written on any blog ever! Well done!

You might just as well say that every post on your own blog, Fluppy, is pornographic, since we were all "produced" by the sexual act. Marvellous. I never had you down for a porn-peddler. Still, you live and learn. Well, some of us do.

"...Darwinian, chance-crazed lunatic asylum..."

Ah, now I have to stop you there. I'm afraid "chance" had nothing to do with it. That is a favourite lie of anti-evolutionists, a straw man by now so aged and withered it's covered in mildew. I'm sure you can do better than that - you're at your best when you're inventive with your invective.

You are the best thing that ever happend to my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and my Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) because you have made it abundantly clear that you don't have a clue about either of them. Sexual reproduction has always been anti-evolutionary just like natural selection. That is why, with very few exceptions, every organism that reproduced sexually became extinct. Now please DON'T stop exposing your monumental ignorance as it is music to my ancient ears.

Got that? Write that down.

jadavison.wordpress.com

P.S.

Be sure to visit my weblog where you will find your stupidity recorded for all to see and appreciate.

"You are the best thing that ever happend to my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and my Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) because you have made it abundantly clear that you don’t have a clue about either of them."

Wow! Logic really isn't your thing, eh Fluppy?

You are correct to say that I don't have a clue about PEH or SMH - in fact, I've never read any of your work. You are probably too far gone to ever learn that your behaviour on forums such as these actively dissuades people from reading your work. Which is a little ironic, don't you think?

However, the inference you draw from my lack of knowledge about PEH and SMH is bizarre - you conclude I'm "the best thing that ever happend [sic]" to them. That doesn't actually make any sense, does it?

But then you go one better:

"Sexual reproduction has always been anti-evolutionary just like natural selection. That is why, with very few exceptions, every organism that reproduced sexually became extinct."

I don't know where to begin with that. How can you reason with someone when they produce gibberish like that? You can't, which is why, Fluppy, you receive so much abuse and so many banishments.

Greg (that's Greg, remember, not Glen) Laden seems to agree.

"Be sure to visit my weblog where you will find your stupidity recorded for all to see and appreciate."

As long as you Darwimps regard me as bonkers I am in good shape. In can assure you that I meant every word I have ever written, whether in the peer reviewed literature, on my weblog, or on the weblogs of other. That includes this one. I will make every one of you poor souls wish you had never screwed with me. Trust me or not. Either way you're toast. You ought to take a lesson from Clinton Richard Dawkins. He has better sense than to mess with me and my distinguished sources. If anyone is truly bonkers it is Dawkins. He lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own making . I predict he will end up in a rubber room.

Don't stop what you are doing and please get others to pile on. Buy my book. I am sure you will find a lot more there to ridicule.

I have already exposed you and every other Darwinian for what you all are and always have been. That is why I asked you to buy my book and to copy the addendum which is at the top of my webpage under "New essays and essays in progress."

Why Bob O'Hara allows you to antagonize me with your childish ravings escapes me. You are no longer Fred the Bubous Squidge. You are now Mark John Brewer, just another illiterate mystic like Paul Zachary Myers, Clinton Richard Dawkins, Mark Chiu-Carroll, Wesley Royce Elsberry and every other devotee of the most persistent hoax in the history of science.

Rejoice - you have made the big time. You no longer have to cower behind that infantile autodescription of yourself - Fred the Bulbous Squidge. Nevertheless, I notice that you continue to disguise your identity because you are a coward. You see all pseudonymous blowhards are cowards.

In the immortal words of Karl Marx

"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."

You antagonise yourself. Nobody makes you read comments here, why is your brain so deficient in neuronal activity to understand that? Why does the simplest of logic that a squirrel would scoff at cause you difficulty?

"Nevertheless, I notice that you continue to disguise your identity because you are a coward."

And here we go again, how am I disguising my identity when anyone reading here will know my real name, because I supplied it? Round and round and round in circles you go, because you have nothing constructive or useful or positive or interesting to say.

Never mind, I'll explain it again. Using a pseudonym does not necessarily imply cowardice.

Got that? Get your carer to write that down for you using a crayon!

The funniest thing of all is that the more you rant and rave, spouting pointless nonsense as you do, the less likely it is people will take your "science" seriously. You are doing yourself more harm than good, yet your own warped mind sees the exact opposite.

Have you tried something else to occupy your time, like canasta?

And you still haven't told me what you meant by your threat above - if you want a real sign of cowardice, then making empty threats on an internet forum is about as clear as you can get.

I do not make threats. I declare intent. I have already exposed you as the nasty, illiterate blowhard you have proven yourself to be. I asked you to read my recent essays. Have you? Apparently not. I also find it revealing that you refuse to read my book. What kind of a scientist are you?

I care not in the least what people think about OUR science. At the present I am primarily interested in letting the Darwinians, like yourself, know what WE think about YOUR science.

Wrong. You make threats. In the same manner as a spoilt child not getting their way.

"I have already exposed you as the nasty, illiterate blowhard you have proven yourself to be."

I haven't been nasty (or at least if I have I'm only giving as good as I'm getting), if I'm illiterate who is typing this, and since I'm not running away or refusing to acknowledge who I am I don't seem to be a blowhard. Just how wrong can you be?

"I asked you to read my recent essays. Have you? Apparently not. I also find it revealing that you refuse to read my book. What kind of a scientist are you?"

I'm a statistician. I thought we'd established that - had you forgotten? I don't work in any area to do with evolution. Why would I read your book when it has no relevance to my field of work? So what does my refusal "reveal", precisely?

Can you really not see how little sense you make?

"I care not in the least what people think about OUR science. At the present I am primarily interested in letting the Darwinians, like yourself, know what WE think about YOUR science."

This isn't relevant to me and it's not relevant to this thread - which is about statistics, remember? You should have written it down, then perhaps it wouldn't have slipped your mind.

"It is a total disaster."

Sounds like this thread to me!

So, to repeat- what did you mean by the following threat?

“I will make every one of you poor souls wish you had never screwed with me.”

I meant that my goal is to expose Darwinism and all those who still are so weak minded as to support it as the intelletual losers they all are. I have already done that if you would just wake up and hear the birdies sing.

Of course this thread is about statistics. That is why I introduced myself by claiming that statistics had absolutely nothing to do with evolution. I suppose you are now going to tell me that "Scientopia" and "This scientific Life" have nothing to do with evolution. This conglomerate is just Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb and RichardDawkins.net all over again, nothing but the perpetuation of the biggest hoax in the history of science.

If Bob had written an article about statistics and evolution, your initial comment back on October 1st would have been relevant. Note I'm not passing opinion on the quality of what you said. The key is that your comment was not relevant. It was out of place. That's all, that's pretty much the point. If someone hijacks the thread with an irrelevant and off-topic post, why should anyone take them seriously? If I posted a comment on your "Evolution is finished" thread about my views on the relative superiority of Bayesian statistics over frequentist statistics, why would you have to respond to it, or take me seriously, whether I was talking sense or not?

If other posts on Scientopia or in Bob/Grrl's blog mention evolution, then comments about evolution might be appropriate. But not here!

I should add that even if this thread had been anything to do with evolution, then continually adding your own comments to the end for reasons of self-publicity over debate is also not the way to behave. A better way to behave would be to make relevant comments, perhaps engaging in real debate, in appropriate places, and not just rant and rave because nobody is agreeing with you on random threads.

I admit I should have shut up long ago, for Bob and Grrl's sake, but they were kind enough to let us bang on. Perhaps we should both now give their blog a break? Seriously?

I told O'Hara long ago that I would leave if you and he would allow me to do so gracefully. But no, you jackass, you had to keep insulting me. If you want some more just keep up making a damn fool of yourself. I can play this game too and will. One more peep out of you and I will copy this whole miserable business and ensure it is read by as many people as possible.

You ought to be grateful to me. This is the only thread in the whole of Scientopia that is even worth reading. As long as you let that pig Mark Chiu-Carroll run this dog and pony show, Scientopia will remain a monumental joke. You clowns should be ashamed of yourselves.

"You ought to be grateful to me. This is the only thread in the whole of Scientopia that is even worth reading. As long as you let that pig Mark Chiu-Carroll run this dog and pony show, Scientopia will remain a monumental joke. You clowns should be ashamed of yourselves."

Blah blah blah. Rant and rave, rant and rave. Washes over all of us.

Is this what you have reduced yourself to? I mean, what kind of mindset actually thinks all this back and forth between you and me is "worth reading"? We've trashed this thread totally, who on earth would want to plough through it all??!!

For a second there a few comments back I was (foolishly) hopeful that you might actually start to make some kind of sense, but no chance, it seems.

Let the record show that Mark John Brewer claims I need psychiatric help. That is exactly what I want to hear and from the more the merrier. You have joined with Paul Zachary Myers who also thinks I am daft and has put it in writing. So what we have now is a clear demarcation between Darwinian mysticism and real science. I am willing to bet that you can't get Bob O'Hara or Devorah Bennu or Mark Chiu-Carroll or anyone else at Scientopia to say I am in need of psychiatric help.

Since you have nothing else to do anyway, why don't you see how many signatures you can muster from real people who are willing to join with you? I'm betting you won't get any. You see you belong to a pretty exclusive club and I intend to make you famous. I already have.

"I am willing to bet that you can’t get Bob O’Hara or Devorah Bennu or Mark Chiu-Carroll or anyone else at Scientopia to say I am in need of psychiatric help."

Why would I want to "get" them to say anything? They are their own people, with their own views, their own opinions, and their own ways of going about things. I do not feel a need - possibly a need that might arise from a deep-seated insecurity - to corral people into agreeing with me.

"So what we have now is a clear demarcation between Darwinian mysticism and real science."

You see, there's a case in point. You cannot seem to get it into your head that I have, not once, said anything in favour of "Darwinism" or the theory of evolution by natural selection or anything even remotely similar. All I have ever done, correctly, is point out that this thread has nothing to do with evolution. Your refusal or inability to accept this I find defies all logic, to the extent that I imagine there must be, not to put to fine a point on it, something wrong with you.

I'm willing to bet your attempts to make me "famous" will prove as successful as your attempts to convert the scientific mainstream over to PEH.

I can play this game as long as you or Bob O'Hara is willing to continue. I see also that you are aware of my PEH and are now on record as ridiculing it. That is exactly the sort of thing I want. Thank you very much. I will wait for all the others who are willing openly to question either my mental stability or my science. So far you belong to a very small club indeed, a fraternity composed almost entirely of illiterate, arrogant, pseudonymous blowhards like yourself. Now put up or shut up. I'm not going away until you do one or the other.

Your blog is certainly a quality source of amusement. Take this text from a comment by "1dublin" (not a real name, must therefore be a pseudonymous blowhard!):

"They can’t debate so they character assassinate. The great Atheist empire seems to be slipping away. Do yo think they will ever come up with any kind of evidence to support their fairy tale…or ever try to communicate with you without a string of insults."

It seems that like yourself, Fluppy, 1dublin conveniently forgets a number of things:

1) Fluppy's inability to engage in debate (well-noted by Bob on this thread, 754,013 comments up);

2) The non-existence of an "Atheist empire", save in the delusional minds of crackpots;

3) The fact that while you may choose not to believe any of it, there is actually a lot of evidence put up to support the "fairy tale" (which I assume is how 1dublin is choosing to refer to the theory of evolution by natural selection); and

4) In terms of insults, Fluppy leaves no one behind (e.g. "Darwimps").

Now I'll save you the bother of typing your next message:

"Let the record show that Fat Git Fred aka Mark John Brewer thinks I am a crackpot. Such are the words people use to describe me, when all I've ever done is promote my PEH which is great, by the way, and not like that Darwinian evolution rubbish which some people like but they're blockheads. And cowards. They're scared because I'm right, and I'll make famous anyone who dares argue with me by typing lots of rubbish on random web pages. Oops! Nearly gave too much away there. Typically, those cowardly cowards hide behind their cowardice and pathetic insults, like the complete gits they are. Oh, and Darwin liked playing with himself and Dawkins is even crazier than I am!

Thanks for adding the icing to the Darwinian baked cake. You Darwinian mystics are the most dedicated herd of masochists in the history of human communication. Unable to defend an evolution by accident, you have always used the same tactic. Any critic of the most absurd proposal ever produced must be insane. Everything you hold dear is a joke. Your heroes are social misfits and enemies of Western Civilization. Mark Chiu-Carroll, the creep who runs this dog and pony show, is a flaming, potty mouthed disgrace and should be summarily dismissed from Scientopia. Scientopia is just another house organ for the congenital atheism which is all that Darwin's fantasy has ever been.

I keep saying - "it doesn't get any better than this," - but it DOES - every time one of you clowns holds forth.

You have no idea how much I enjoy this opportunity to evoke the kind of response that we always get from these Darwinian Alamos of which Scentopia is just one more recent addition. PhyloIntelligence is another disaster, another closed union shop no different from Pharyngula, After the Bar Closes or RichardDawkins.net

The only thing that distinguished This Scientific Life from the others is the willingness of Bob O'Hara and grrl scientist( nee Devorah Bennu) to let this critic speak. For that I thank them. So confident are they of the selectionist, mutationist thesis that they welcome and encourage me, certain that I will make a fool of myself. I maintain that I have never published a word in any scientific journal that has ever been found to be without substantial merit. I say the same for every word I have written on my weblog or any other weblog where I have been allowed to speak. That includes this one.

To be treated with the kind of contempt I receive here separates this blog from others, most of which have the good sense to continue pretending that we do not exist.

"Any critic of the most absurd proposal ever produced must be insane."

As I have said many times before - and the evidence is above for all to see - you are not regarded as "insane" for your scientific views, but for your bizarre outbursts on forums such as these. The comment directly above is a beautiful case in point.

"I maintain that I have never published a word in any scientific journal that has ever been found to be without substantial merit. I say the same for every word I have written on my weblog or any other weblog where I have been allowed to speak."

Oh really? Then how do you explain this comment of yours, from Greg Laden's blog:

"You are finished you two bit little blowhard. It is you who is gone. You have committed suicide and I am just the one to expose you."

That is certainly lacking in "substantial merit", as it makes you out to be a nasty, childish, spiteful worm.

Greg Laden was dumb enough to claim I was in love with him. That kind of egomania demands a nasty response. He then banished me. I have been claiming that the Darwimps are committing suicide for a long time just like Thomas Henry Huxley predicted in Darwin's own day.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."

Hell's bells, I'll trade insults with anyone. When in Rome etc, etc. I'm through being Mr. Nice Guy. This has become a war.

Pardon? He was mocking you. Does everything people say go over your head?

"That kind of egomania demands a nasty response."

Firstly, he may have been somewhat rude, but "egomania" is simply not the right word at all, which makes me wonder why you feel qualified to brand others as "illiterate". Secondly, why couldn't you "turn the other cheek"?

Every Darwinian I have ever known was absolutely convinced of his position. Darwinians are all egomaniacs, all atheists (whether they will admit it or not) and 95% of them are left wing political liberals as well. You see Darwinians don't believe in anything . That is why liberals are also known as relativists. In short, Darwinians are not scientists and I can't think of a single truly first class Darwinian scientist. By way of contrast, every one of my several sources was not only a first rate scientist in his own f ield, but not one was a religious or atheist fanatic. Most prominent Darwinians like Pee Zee Myers and Richard Dawkins are Marxist revolutionaries just like Stephen Jay Gould was before them. The vast majority of academics are arrogant, atheist, left wing fanatics who openly despise the Judeo-Chrstian ethic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reach that conclusion as it is evident in every "forum" which supports the Darwnian hoax. They are also cowards who typically muzzle their critics either by ignoring them, by banishing them or, as is the mode here at Scientopia, by treating them with open contempt and then banishing them, Mark Chiu-Carroll's method of choice. Many Darwinian weblogs also promote obscenity and they are all laced with pseudonymous blowhards.

Thanks for enabling me to put that little summary on record. I meant every word of it.

I have no persecution complex either. That is another myth dreamed up out of thin air. I am a sadist, gleefully satisfying the masochistic tendencies of those who must hide their real identities with such self-deprecating handles as Fred the Bulbous Squidge. No real scientist would dream of treating himself with such flagrant contempt. No real scientist would treat a colleague as I have been treated both here and elsewhere either. I am proud of my history both as a scientist and citizen and I thrive on insult and denigration because they only define the character of those who employ such tactics.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

Darwinians won't fight either because they know they will lose. Their cowardice is legendary and I have proved it time and time again, one of my most gratifying accomplishments.

By the way, does anyone here know who runs the Phylointelligence blog? When a new Darwinian blog appears without a leader, that constitutes the bottom of the intellectual and ethical barrel. I'll bet it is well known among Darwinians and I am confident they will never let me know.

Only to you and others like you. There are thousands of us who feel the same way. Institutions of higher learning have always been Meccas for the intellectual dregs of society. There was a time in the distant past when Harvard, Cambridge and Cornell were important centers for evolutionary science but that ended with the arrival of Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and William Provine, atheist Darwinian mystics all and not a real scientist in the lot. Scientists seek the Truth. Those four think they have already found it. So do the thousands of their rabidly loyal like minded disciples. Atheist inspired neo-Darwinism is a clear and present danger to the integrity of a free society. It always has been.

I will stop also if I can depart without being further insulted. I made that clear long ago, but it was not honored. Otherwise, I am prepared to continue and copy these proceedings to my weblog for as long as that may take. That precaution is in case this thread might magically disappear which would not surprise me in the least.

It was my half century in academe that made it possible for me to evaluate that venue as the danger it has always posed to the search for the truth. I suggest you read my essay "What it means to be an antiDarwinian at the University of Vermont." You will find it in the right hand column under essays. The University of Vermont is typical in its arrogant insistence on the most ridiculous suggestion in the history of science, a scenario without a shred of evidence. The Darwinian hoax still reigns supreme, especially in the literature of the English speaking world.